Jump to content

Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

RfC: Past or present tense for the bridge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(Closure requested) Articles use present tense by default, but past tense can be used if the subject "no longer meaningfully exists". (MOS:TENSE) Most editors who participated in this RfC agreed that existence as a partially collapsed / destroyed bridge is still meaningful. Some participants who supported the past tense argued that the bridge in question no longer meets the dictionary definition of a bridge (such as that it can be crossed), but that argument was effectively rebutted (a broken object still exists in the present tense). Overall, the quality of arguments also favours the present tense.

There is a consensus to use present tense with the exact phrasing to be determined through normal editing and discussion. This matter can of course be revisited if the remnants of the bridge are demolished or the situation otherwise materially changes. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead section first sentence says "The bridge was", in past tense. Should the first sentence be in past tense (Support past tense); or in present tense (Oppose past tense)? -- GreenC 19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

See section above, where it is discussed.

Rules of the RfC:

  • The RfC only concerns the first sentence. Not the rest of the article. The other uses of "was" can be worked out individually based on context of use, common sense, and results of this RfC. For example, "1 million cars cross the bridge each year" was changed to "1 million cars crossed the bridge" - this can be changed to "As of 2023, 1 million cars crossed the bridge" (source dated to 2023) which satisfies both past and present tense concerns.
  • If consensus is for present tense in the first sentence, the phrasing can be worked out later through normal discussions, another RfC, of even clear consensus in this RfC.

-- GreenC 19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


Survey

  • Oppose (As nominator.) Prefer something like "is a partially collapsed bridge", "is a destroyed bridge", etc.. which is more precise and less vague. The bridge is composed of three elements: 1) physical object 2) legal entity 3) cultural object. The #2 and #3 still exist, according to present knowledge. There is no evidence the bridge will renamed. Historical bridge collapses have been rebuilt with the same name. Without information it will be renamed the status quo should be assumed. -- GreenC 19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support GreenC's argument violates MOS:TENSE which requires that when the bridge no longer meaningfully exists, as is the case here according to the definition of a bridge in a dictionary, which requires it to (fully) cross a space, the past tense is used. A counterexample to their precedent is the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge, whose replacement is the I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge. Another is the replacement of the Charlestown High Bridge with the Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge. Yet another, also involving catastrophic collapse, is the Morandi Bridge, replaced by the Genoa-Saint George Bridge. The former design is unlikely to be reused due to being fracture critical. Furthermore, since the lead sentence specifies crossing the Patepsco River, it becomes an outright false sentence if it were changed to the present tense, even if the qualifier "destroyed bridge" is added, because a destroyed bridge does not cross.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support past tense. I've already made my case above, but TL;DR: it does not meet the definition of a bridge anymore. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Having been rendered inoperable, it is no longer a bridge. If it is rebuilt, it will be a new bridge, that is not the same as this bridge which is the subject of the article.
This is no different to how we have different articles for the World Trade Center (1973–2001) (referred to in in past tense), because it was destroyed, and a different office complex was built in its place. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support past tense primarily because it is indisputable that the main span no longer exists and because my interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is that while it would be inappropriate to assume that the bridge will be "rebuilt" or that it will have the same name as it does now, it would also be inappropriate to assume that it will be "replaced" or that it will have a different name. (Just to clarify about the name, I don't find it at all difficult in today's America to foresee that the same people who complain about the use of the word "slave" in the National Anthem might oppose the use of the name of the man who composed that lyric.) As an intellectual matter, I understand the appeal of "partially collapsed bridge," but I'm concerned about the accuracy of that sort of statement because I'm not a structural engineer and I don't know what exactly the proper part of the overall structure is (or was) for purposes of considering what constitutes (or constituted) the "bridge." That is, as I noted in a comment somewhere further up on the talk page, there is a difference between "the bridge" when defined as the truss structure (and the roadway that structure supported) and "the bridge" when defined as including the approach structures to either side. With a suspension bridge, for example, it's the portion between the two towers that counts for determining what "the longest bridge" is, but there is always some sort of structure to either side of those towers. I think the article here is pretty clear that the truss structure was the significant part of the "bridge" and that the other portions (the portions that are still standing) were somewhat ancillary to that. For those reasons, while as an intellectual matter I understand the thought process behind advocating "partially collapsed bridge," I don't support the use of the present tense to describe the bridge in this article. User:Peter L Griffin posted his comment while I was typing mine, but I find his reasoning to be logical, subject to my concern about WP:CRYSTAL. 1995hoo (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose past tense. It will be appropriate to use "was" in the future, but I don't see it as appropriate at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pemilligan (talk • contribs) -- 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support The bridge is sadly and obviously no longer a bridge. SportingFlyer T·C 21:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support From my point of view, the current bridge is dead. It will most likely replaced nearby with a new bride, and may have the same name (wich I personally doubt), but the current constructions is dead and beyond of repair. Therefore past and it was. GodeNehler (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (Brought here from RFC/A), I do agree with GreenC the idea of labeling it as a "partially collapsed" bridge. It is informative and accurate. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Similar to the points made by others here, and based on the common-sense logic of accurately reflecting the current situation. Language in other parts of the article can clarify the continuing legal or cultural status of this absent object. Potential future rebuilding in the same location may merit a full separate article or separate sections for each version depending on how events unfold.Shorn again (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose precisely per GreenC. The opening sentence should say it is a broken bridge, because that's what it is in ordinary terminology. A car is a self-propelled land vehicle. But in common parlance, if my car breaks down so that it is not currently capable of self-propulsion, I don't stop calling it a car – I still call it a car, although I might start calling it a broken-down car. If it ends up in a junkyard, I call it a junked car. If it's put through a crusher, I call it a crushed car. It doesn't even matter whether the bridge is renamed or not; it only matters whether it continues to exist or not. We shouldn't start using "was" unless most of the remnants of the bridge have been carted away and whatever is at its former location is not considered the same bridge. See MOS:TENSE. We should only use "was" if the bridge "no longer meaningfully exist[s]", not simply because it is no longer functioning for its intended purpose. Moreover, notice that "Bridge" is in uppercase in the article title – that word is part of the proper name of the thing, not a description of what it is. In principle, a proper name is a completely arbitrary label, not a description. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • soft oppose I'm kind of in the middle. If the bridge gets renamed after being rebuilt, then to me that would signify a totally new bridge (and a new article), and we would use "was" in this article. If the bridge doesn't get renamed, then that would signify a continuation, a rebirth (to be poetic), of the bridge, and there wouldn't need to be a new article. It would just start a new "era" in the history of the bridge. So my suggestion would be to say it's broken for now and then wait to see what happens with reconstruction and possible renaming. pillowcrow 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Objectively: which verb tense to use hinges on whether the bridge still exists in the present tense. That is all that needs to be proven. To prove that the bridge still exists, I say a worker can literally tell the person next to them "Hey, I'm going out to visit the Francis Scott Key bridge", and if they confusedly answer "That's impossible, it no longer exists!", the worker would probably think that's illogical and reply something to the effect of "Well, I am literally going there now, so it definitely exists". To refute some of the claims made by the "Support" camp: nuance is important. Dictionary definitions have limited bearing on encyclopedia definitions i.e., we cannot have an article that purports to be about a bridge talk about an airplane, but that's not the case here. A damaged bridge is still quote-unquote "a bridge" (as in "not an airplane"), and "damaged bridge" is not a valid term for a dictionary hence it that nuance is missing from there. So the dictionary argument is irrelevant for deciding whether the bridge exists in the present. The importance of future plans for the bridge is not which specific plans they are, but that they signal people are talking about the bridge in the present tense and what they will do with it. It may be repaired, it may be replaced, it may be renamed, but in any case... it exists today, and the fact that this debate is ongoing is proof enough it still exists. Subjectively: from an outside perspective, this whole "was" saga reeks of Wikipedia editors racing to be the first to say "was" when some new event has happened and wanting to gain some significance from this. If you search "wikipedia editors meme" on Google, most results including the top link and top image point to this trend. I encourage you to revisit what we're solving for here. Do we want to get cute and immediately declare the bridge dead or, you know, apply a very modest amount of reason and caution to wait until we have a clear line on the sand about the bridge no longer existing before making this edit? Which of the two scenarios helps readers understand the article? Imaginary brownie points are irrelevant and being the first to declare the bridge dead is neither Wikipedia's responsibility nor what makes an encyclopedia great. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's still a type of bridge, namely, a destroyed and unusable bridge. I find the IP's argument directly above mine particularly compelling, in that you can use the present tense to describe the bridge... albeit with caveats such as "I'm going to the remains of the Francis Scott Key bridge". The fact that there is nearly a 0% chance of it not being rebuilt, and a nearly 0% chance of it being renamed, means the present tense is appropriate. London Bridge includes previous incarnations of the bridge, which were likewise destroyed-- the modern bridge is not really considered a "new and different bridge" than the historical ones. Fieari (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with BarrelProof. It's not like the bridge no longer exists; it's just being reconstructed now. Some1 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose It might cease to exist in the future, but for now you can still point to the surviving stretches and say, "That's the Key bridge". But I also like the suggestion of "is a partially collapsed bridge", "is a destroyed bridge", etc. PRRfan (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Others have given ample real-world examples of why the dictionary logic doesn't work. A car stuck in the mud with a seized, burnt-out engine, is still a car and this is still a bridge, albeit a severely damaged and unusable one. When it is dismantled, becomes scrap metal and when RS start referring to "the ex-bridge" is time to change tense. Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Opposs: Per reasons listed. Pedrovelo (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's unusable, but what's left of it is still a bridge. The Pont d'Avignon partially collapsed 380 years ago and has never been repaired, but it retains its name. Maproom (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support when the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, a new article was made for its replacement, the I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge. the Key Bridge, likewise, no longer exists for all intents and purposes. the reconstruction will be a completely new entity, quite likely to have enough significant coverage to warrant its own article. when a person dies, we do not refer to them in the present tense,a nd while the bridge is not a living person, it has clearly ceased to be a bridge. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support the bridge used to exist, it does not anymore. Therefore, past tense is appropriate. If a replacement bridge is built, a new article can be written and we can link to it from here and explain in its history why the replacement was necessary. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Soft Oppose the bridge is in partial existence, is identifiable, and all the other arguments previously stated. When this bridge is fully dismantled, then the past tense is appropriate. Sergeant Curious (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. The question is whether the reference is to the physical bridge (which no longer exists), or the concept of the bridge and the thing named it (which, respectively, still does exist and almost certainly will again exist). The lead sentence reads The Francis Scott Key Bridge (informally, Key Bridge or Beltway Bridge) was a steel arch continuous through truss bridge that spanned the lower Patapsco River and outer Baltimore Harbor/Port in Maryland, United States.. That is clearly a reference to the physical bridge which once was a steel arch continuous bridge, and once did span the river and port, but now neither of those is true of it. Will the new bridge be constructed in the exact same manner? Well, no one knows yet. So, the bridge referred to by that sentence was the actual physical object, which once existed and now no longer does. When the new bridge is built, there will all but certainly be enough material about it to justify a full new article about it, and this article will likely need to be renamed, but until then, the structure that lead sentence is about was a bridge. It isn't one any more. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Noting for the record that I missed and did not consider this !vote. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I feel like GreenC is bludgeoning the process. Anyone else has this feeling? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    Look further up the page at the subsection "Is/Was resolution." The user who had protected the page directed the people who want it to say "is" to use the RFC process. Under the circumstances, I can't fault GreenC for doing exactly that. If said user were to respond to every "Support" comment in a negative fashion, I might feel otherwise, but that hasn't happened so far. My gripe is with the IP editors who keep showing up and changing the article with claims that the consensus is to use "is." 1995hoo (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Pemilligan: WP:ILIKEIT, i.e. presenting no substantive arguments, is not helpful here per WP:NOTAVOTE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    You're repetitive pronouncements of what is true and what is false aren't much help either. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Pemilligan: Ah, I see, trying to WP:BAIT and WP:POKEBEAR. Tu quoque isn't an argument either. And you won't get more replies after this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    Neither are yours. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • To further rebut User:GreenC's argument, now a reliable source is predicting the bridge to be replaced. With a wider main span, the existing approaches will not be reusable.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • To yet further rebut it, @GreenC: now there is a serious suggestion to rename it per [1]. Therefore, you must strike the part of your comment saying there's no evidence it'll be renamed, which in any case wasn't a strong argument in the first place.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    All the other arguments notwithstanding, citing what a few engineers say about the prospects of a new bridge and what a few politicians say about a possible new name (yes, yes, as quoted in RS) is getting a bit far over our skis. I'm pretty sure there's a WP convention about sticking to what has happened rather than speculating about what might. PRRfan (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    Strikes me as possibly falling within paragraph 3 of WP:CRYSTAL. 1995hoo (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    Nor was I proposing to insert these into the article. What I'm calling out is GreenC made the unjustifiably strong claim that "there's no evidence" of a renaming as an argument for the present tense. Since I've found some evidence, that claim has been refuted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    For choosing the verb tense for the opening sentence, it shouldn't matter whether the bridge will be renamed or not. All that matters is whether the bridge continues to exist or not. If the bridge continues to exist and is renamed (and the new name is commonly adopted by the general public so that the WP:COMMONNAME changes), the article would simply be renamed to the new name. What matters for choosing the verb tense is whether the previous bridge is considered to still exist. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    @BarrelProof: Sorry, a bridge that no longer has a main span does not "meaningfully exist", especially as a major mapping application has removed it from the map. And the article will not be renamed if the bridge is renamed, with the old name staying the COMMONNAME for the old bridge only. That's the precedent of the I-35W and Zakim bridges. Please also try to not WP:SHOUT like you did in your first sentence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the helpful advice on how I should write my comments, but frankly I see a lot less boldfacing in my remarks than in the WP:SHOUT guideline description that purports to discourage it. As for whether the broken bridge still meaningfully exists or not, I think I will stick with my opinion despite seeing that yours differs. Please see my above remarks about a broken-down car. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    @BarrelProof: I already refuted the broken car comparison, because a car's functioning is not part of its definition, but a bridge's crossing something is. The other point that is not in favor of yours is that a person no longer exists after death even when their body does. Nor did you address how I completely refuted your assertion that the article would be renamed to follow the new bridge name; yet another counter example is the Morandi Bridge's replacement, the Genoa-Saint George Bridge, and I should point out that the Morandi Bridge had an even smaller percentage of its length collapse.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for expressing your opinion, as I have expressed mine. I will let someone else decide which prevails, but in my opinion and in your words, "Your objection is not sustained." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    You argued something factually wrong, which is the renaming. My objection prevails. Don't try to use my words against me; it'll never work. Cope.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    Your entire tone is so unwelcoming as if you had some skin in the game here. Who cares if it's really "is" or "was" at the end of the day? I fail to understand why you're deriving significance from this... I care for accuracy, but it has no bearing on my life. I find it odd that you choose to be this off-putting throughout this whole talk page.
    Maybe don't start your answers with "Sorry, comma..." followed by an opinion. Maybe don't end them with "Cope". Maybe don't call people's opinions "*italicized* factually wrong" when this is a discussion with two sides trying to find some logical resolution, and you're also just literally sharing your opinion.
    Be positive and be polite. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    > "meaningfully exist"
    You keep making this comment as if it's self-evidently true, but you have failed to convince the many that oppose the past tense usage as to its accuracy.
    To date, it seems like your arguments are generally that the current bridge doesn't fit (a) the dictionary definition or (b) the engineering definition. I view these as secondary definitions that are more appropriate to discussing a (lowercase) bridge rather than "The Francis Scott Key Bridge". I would argue dictionaries focus on lowercase definitions and encyclopedias focus on uppercase things of note.
    I am of the view that the "entity" that defines the Francis Scott Key Bridge still exists. People are debating what to do about it, which by itself is (perhaps self-evident) proof that such a bridge still exists. People are talking about whether to repair or renew it. Meaning it exists in some damaged state that ought to be fixed (or fully replaced such that it does, at that point, cease to exist).
    The last time I made these arguments, you wrongly accused me of a "wall of text" rather than actually responding to the points I'm making. I encourage you to enter into an unbiased discussion of the merits of our position (i.e. put yourself in our shoes) rather than dismissing it outright and trying to "one up" other editors when they express their views, because that's neither helpful nor welcoming to contributing members of the community. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • This source forcibly describes the bridge as "no longer".--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    Not that it much matters, but that's an opinion piece, albeit by the Baltimore Sun's editorial board, and I'd say its use of "no longer" is a bit more flowery than forcible. PRRfan (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    This is an opinion piece that has the specific agenda of changing the name of the bridge due to racial issues, so it really has limited bearing on whether the bridge exists or not. They're trying to push that agenda, not to logically resolve the "correct" tense for the bridge. 167.88.84.136 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not, frankly, accept a closure by Charcoal feather (talk · contribs) who has only 725 edits and has been here for less than a year. I want this closure to be reviewed by someone with much more experience closing contentious discussions, as the above hardly constitutes a "consensus". They also made the factually wrong statement that a majority of people said that the bridge meaningfully exists; a strict headcount is only 50-50.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Collapse

I am not a contributor but am watching this article in real-time and wanted to say thank you to the dedicated folks on here who are working to keep the flow of information accurate as stuff rolls in, and moreover just helping remove the absolute nonsense/trolling happening DiscoSkittle (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Been contributing myself, no worries! Dellwood546 (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
PAST TENSE ERROR. Until it is deemed irreparable or is demolished and cleared, the bridge in this article should not be referenced in past tense. Only a portion of the center span collapsed. The bridge is a crucial route in and out of the Baltimore Harbor and part of the Baltimore bypass. It will be repaired post haste. Over 11 million vehicles cross this span annually. Like the Oakland Bay Bridge, which collapsed as a result of the 6.9 magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake in October 1989, it will be repaired. The collapse is part of the bridge history, not the end of its history. Please fix the article or I will. Thank you. Imflyboy2 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
dude, if people can't cross over it, is it a bridge? 2601:407:C500:FFC0:F95F:4E2E:C5BF:394 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
If I have a broken computer, it's still a computer even if it's incapable of computing. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, I believe the argument is facile, not that the conclusion is incorrect. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it is a bridge that used to have a central span. Some statements can be rightly made using the past tense. 35000 cars a day used to cross it, and maybe they will cross again in a few years, but it doesn't feel right to say that they cross using the present tense.--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
If it cannot compute, what is it doing?
Updates From: Ibmood (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Sitting around uselessly. It's still a computer though. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
If a car is parked it doesn't cease to be a car.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.135.233.22 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Seconding this! I'm incredibly grateful to everyone who's edited the page and added info about the collapse — I just hope editors don't forget about The Baltimore Banner. Regularnewsfreak (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore)/Archive_2&oldid=1242598937"